Sample Questons

Karlson:

I think you're idea of using screening questions is solid. That idea also ran through my mind but there was one snag; do those screening questions count towards our 5 total questions that we are allowed? I know I'm fairly late to join in on the discussion but from what I understand, we are only allow 5 questions in total for our survey. If we have two questions that serve as screening questions, then we'll effectively have 4 questions already done and we might not be able to cover all the bases we wanted to cover. If we are able to group the screening questions and the follow up questions as single question, then I think using them would be a great idea. It would just give us so many more things we can sort for. The screening questions may also allow us to attack questions with more depth, while not leaving behind some of the population that just is not concerned with foreign politics.

Stephan:

I think you bring up a great point with your example questions. The first thing that I noticed about your example questions was that it quickly formed the idea in my head that your questions really get at 'trusting' the government as an institution. All the questions you've posed, or at least how I see them, really question the decisions the government has made so far. In this regard, I differ with Karlson a little in that your questions aren't framing, but at the same time, if we really want to get at something, we might have to push to get answers - not necessarily answers we want to hear but rather issues that we'd like the population to think about while answering the questions.

My Views:

My addition to the questions put forward already would be, "Do you believe that the Canadian Government has been totally transparent with their motives for entering Afghanistan?" Similar to Stephan's question about the peacekeeping but a little more broad (might require more background knowledge though).

If I may throw my hat in with both Karlson and David, I also agree that screening questions could be quite useful in distinguishing the more knowledgeable respondents from the rest. But, as David points out, we are quite limited with the max 5 questions.

However, I don't see there being any problems with us breaking up the questions into multiple parts. So, some or all the questions could begin with a screening section. If, like Karlson's example, the answer is in the affirmative we proceed to the second and perhaps third section of the question. This doesn't necessarily mean that the questions will be much longer, we just have to make sure to be as clear and concise as possible.

I also agree that screening questions would be an excellent way to gauge both public knowledge of foreign policy and their opinions on such matters. My questions do seem very broad and may not "push for answers" as David pointed out, but if we want to proceed with screening questions, I think it's important that we ask Dr. Cutler just to be sure. If we are allowed to do so, it's important that we decide what areas of Afghanistan/foreign policy that we are intending to be more specific. I would agree with Lee's earlier comments about Canada's involvement in NATO and it's relation with the US. Karlson's ideas regarding other mission that Canada may or may not have been involved in is also a good topic. The success of the mission and the withdrawal of troops are other areas I think are important. Any other suggestions?

The screening questions would certainly provide greater insight on the average Canadian's understanding of foreign policy. I also agree with Lee and Stephan that we should enlarge the scope of questioning, including other areas of Canada's foreign policy and global commitments. Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is directly linked to its alliance with the United States and its membership in NATO. Karlson also has some good questions relating to Canada's involvement in future missions. We could also examine what effects the Afghanistan mission has had on public perception. Perhaps asking individuals if Canada's involvement in Afghanistan would make them more or less likely to support future interventions. Or if the Afghanistan mission has given them a more positive or negative view about Canada's membership in NATO.

I think its extremely important to formulate a question that addresses Canada's membership in NATO. As Patrick stated, Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is directly linked to its alliance to the US and NATO. I think the majority of Canadians do obtain some general knowledge of Canada's network of alliances (especially with the US) so I personally don't think asking this question will negatively effect the accuracy of our results.

Something along the lines of these:

Given the importance of the Canadian alliance with the United States, do you agree with Canada’s decision to participate in the war in Afghanistan? Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

OR

Given Canada’s membership in NATO, do you agree with Canada’s decision to participate in the war in Afghanistan? Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

I think questions like this will address the important aspect of alliances in relation to the war in Afghanistan. What do you guys think?